Christopher Monckton’s visit gets covered in the Sydney Morning Herald. On Monckton’s argument that climate sensitivity us just one-sixth of the generally accepted value:

The argument Lord Monckton mounted has been painstakingly picked apart by several eminent climate-change researchers, but it was an Australian computer scientist, Tim Lambert, who helped collate many of the flaws on his website.

“A lot of the equations used to cover it up were right, but the argument was complete gibberish,” Mr Lambert said.

The hypothesis took the lowest possible range of carbon dioxide’s known warming effect on climate, multiplied it by the lowest possible effect of the various feedbacks that amplify the warming effect, to give a figure well below that shown by any observation.

One of the implications of the hypothesis was that, given what we know about climate, there could not have been ice ages in the past.

“The hypothesis is completely inconsistent with the observations,” said Professor Matthew England, the co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW.

“In science, the world isn’t wrong so the calculations must be wrong.”

On a slightly offtopic note, only today I read, on a German blog, the ultimate in denial; it makes the Laird sound positively reasonable: “There is no greenhouse effect. Neither natural, nor man-made.” Stunning, isn’t it? This guy later continued with “We don’t need any models. They’re all wrong. You will find not one model that is able to correctly represent the past.”

I’ve seen most denier canards, but that level of denial was so far off the chart it impressed even me.

Nah, David Flint would wet himself harder than an Eton boy on his first day. Flint would probably chase Monckton around until the two ended up cohabitting, and the last thing the world needs is a Flint/Monckton spawn issuing forth…

Actually, given the economic downturn and UK budgetary difficulties, I think you’ll find Lard Munchkin (chief Hitler Youth spotter) was referring to the undoubted effects that almost certain defence budget cuts post the UK 2010 general election will have: parity with the size of the Luxembourg Navy may have been mooted.

Monckton posts Lord Donoughue as saying “Greenpeace now has a fleet of ships larger than the British Navy” (emphasis mine) on the [link](http://sppiblog.org/news/the-noble-lord-is-right#more-714) that JasonW provides. Monckton, or his authorised representatives, titled the piece “The Noble Lord is right”…

Interesting about the Royal Navy… I’d actually typed first that in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-2210246), and then I saw what Monckton had written and altered my reference to ‘British’. I assumed that there’d been a name change of the sort that has happened with most ‘Royal’ institutions in Australia as the monarchy is quietly pushed to the background: apparently the truth is that Monckton himself is in a hurry to disband the monarchy back in Britannia!

Oh dear, does that mean that he is about to disavow his own ‘peerage’ in the process?!

As an aside, I have only now just read Monckton’s CV on the SPPI homepage. What a load of contrived and downright untrue twaddle! It’s no wonder that you want him to stay in Australia…

@Juliette – I begrudgingly admit the Royal Navy may have more ships but are they as well armed as the Greenpeace ships? Surely the Navy of one of the richest countries on Earth can’t match the weaponry arsenal of an environmental organisation?

@John: It is true that the Greenpeace arsenal of yellow banners and black non-toxic finger paint is quite lethal to any climate destroyer, overfisher and toxic dumper that is encountered. I don’t think any Navy in the world has weapons on board that are more feared

Me dumb dhogaza, thanks. You would think that an eco-nut commie (sarc) like I would know better. Actually after doing some searching after reading your message, looks like they are not on good terms, and GP is in fact trying to distance themselves from SS. So especially bad of me to make the mistake of linking the two. We do not want to give LM any ammo to distort things more.

No, they aren’t on good terms. Paul Watson thinks Greenpeace are a bunch of wimps, in essence, because of their adherence to the principles of non-violence.

While Greenpeace is, to say the least, unsupportive of Watson’s extremism, which includes the sinking of whalers, etc. They get particularly annoyed when people accuse Greenpeace of carrying out such activities.

The only UK armed force that doesn’t start with ‘Royal’ is the British army. The others are called The Royal Air Force, The Royal Marines and The Royal Navy. However I believe all the regiments in the army begin have ‘Royal’ in the name. eg. The Royal Artillery.

There is another explanation of Monckton, and that is he didn’t think anyone outside the UK would understand who the Royal Navy was.

I’m not somebody who gets dressed up in silly costumes and protests at meetings like Copenhagen or the G20. I think those who do are a little odd, and I’m suspicious whether they understand much of the science themselves, or are just driven by emotions and philosophy, like the deniers.

I actually have a lot of sympathy now for activists of many stripes, because there are times where it is their actions that save the day, and not those of inert bureaucracies and tokenist lay people.

The [Timburra Gold Mine Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbarra_Gold_Mine) is one good example. It was enormously ill-advised from the start, will piles and piles of scientific evidence indicating the ecologically unique nature of the plateau. There was much warning that the tailings dam would present an extreme risk to waterways below it, and of course the mine developers and their allies claimed that this, and other types of damage, could be managed with no impact to the ecosystem.

Environmentalists held up the project by the usual expedient of protesting, chaining themselves to machinery and such, in addition to action through the courts. Without the significant delays that this interference posed, the mine would have been far more advanced and modified much more of the plateau than it had when the rains came that – you guessed it – flooded the tailings dam and contaminated the waterways below.

Some might argue that the mine would have closed eventually anyway, but I doubt that such would have occurred without the attention the activists focussed upon it; at least, until the price of gold dropped sufficiently to put it temporarily in mothballs. The environmentalists saved the plateau from far more damage than occurred, and my hat goes off to them for their stance.

The [Franklin Dam project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam) in Tasmania is another example of a project that would surely have continued without activist action: indded, there are many forest-related examples one could cite. The most recent example is the [proposed Traveston Dam](http://tinyurl.com/y8f5lm6) on the Mary River.

And I suspect that the best thing that could have happened for Sea Shepherd’s cause was for the Japanese to sink the Adi Gill – it’s advertised the plight of whales, and the scientific insanity of the hunting – far more than a few million dollars of advertising ever would have!

Without activists, even the ones that wear funny suits and/or protest in front of buildings, Australia’s (and many other countries’, I’m sure) ecological landscapes would be far more devastated than they already are.

The vested interests can hardly complain about it either – they have their Marohasys, Heartlands, SPPIs and such, which are simply activists in pinstripes and carrying pens, digital voice recorders, and briefcases.

As a scientist – an ecologist – who has seen the words of advice from my colleagues fall on deaf government and private industry ears, I say thumbs up to those who have the courage, the motivation, and the initiative to bring matters to the attention of the public, where such matter might otherwise be quietly swept under the carpet of political and/or economic expediency. We need the science, and we need the ‘right channels’, but given the power of vested interests we also need a balance through activism.

Having seen, from an ecologist’s perspective, the difference that it makes, I’m happy to pop a few bucks into a bucket carried by a sweating koala on a street corner in the summer heat.

Bernard – maybe I have led a sheltered life, but I am struck by an observationm to wit – that online and in newspapers I havn’t seen an ecologist or similarly biologically involved person who is studying what is happening now saying anything other than “Oh Shit”.

But yet they get ignored. The climate change denialists wheel out people who are still working in the field or only recently stopped. But as to whats happening to the global ecosystems, there’s nothing but gloom and ignorance.

I concur with Bernard. My experience in Maine (U.S.) mirrors the dynamic he describes. Science, in and of itself, does not create social and policy change even when the science clearly shows certain changes are necessary and beneficial. As a professional environmental advocate, I work with all types of people who have different personal comfort levels with various types of advocacy. Some do not like speaking at public meetings, others do. Some are willing to write letters to their elected officials and newspapers, others do not. Some believe lawsuits are the best approach in certain circumstances, others prefer less adversarial methods. Some just want to write a check to support the cause. Others want to stand in the road with protest signs. If you’re a good organizer, you can always figure out ways to incorporate each person’s likes and dislikes so that they can contribute in some way.

Quiggin in his piece “Why I won’t debate Monckton” is absolutely correct and very shrewd. Just leave things right where they are post climategate and Copenhagen. After all, to debate could mean another setback. Just keep the argument within the circle of those that are already persuaded.

Science, in and of itself, does not create social and policy change even when the science clearly shows certain changes are necessary and beneficial.

I think that’s because Science can only tell us what’s going to happen, not why we should care. I’m convinced the reason so many people are apathetic about global warming is that they think it will only happen to other people, not anyone they care about. “Me and my wife, son John and his wife, these four and no more.” As for future generations, well, “what have future generations done for me?”

I, also, concur with Bernard, et al, that activism can be of great social benefit.

Female emancipation, universal suffrage, the right to form trade unions, and countless other “rights” we now take for granted were all achieved through social activism including in many cases violent action.

Whenever I hear the meek advocating inaction I remember the Redgum lyrics:

“You know they took Ned Kelly
And they hung him in the Melbourne gaol
He fought so very bravely
Dressed in iron mail
And no man single-handed
Can hope to break the bars
It’s a thousand like Ned Kelly
Who’ll hoist the flag of stars

Poor Ned, you’re better off dead
At least you’ll get some peace of mind
You’re out on the track
They’re right on your back
Boy, they’re gonna hang you high”

I think that’s because Science can only tell us what’s going to happen, not why we should care.

Well said. Or, in the case of AGW, science can provide a range of probabilities for any number of possible outcomes. As an organizer, I’ve often told the actual scientists doing the actual work: what I need from you is the best science you can provide because that’s not something I’m equipped to do. Scientists need advocates just as much as advocates need science. I never make claims which lie outside what the science can reliably support. When you do that, you lose the support of the scientists, you damage your own credibility and indirectly you damage theirs as well.

“You mean the public only gain awarness about stuff if its through interactions with Monckton?”

We are discussing Quiggin and Quiggin’s impact on public awarness not where public awarness comes from generally. So I will repeat what I said another way. When Monckton is in town Quiggin should stay home – if he’s smart …. because it would be an exercise in futility for Quiggin.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of perfectly good ways to get involved politically; I just think chaining yourself to equipment or throwing noxious substances at a whalers and especially arson are across the line. There are better ways of convincing politicians that your vote may be tied to an issue.

I’m also rather irritated by the sorts who’ve come to oppose the building of anything, anywhere – including wind turbines.

I’m also rather irritated by the sorts who’ve come to oppose the building of anything, anywhere – including wind turbines.

There are real, serious issues about specific wind turbine sites, particularly the direct mortality on raptors and other birds, and bats. And also noise, if they are near homes. This is a real problem on Mars Hill in Aroostook County, Maine. These turbines are loud, in the very low frequency range.

I encourage the throwing of noxious substances at whalers, given they are using a transparently spurious excuse for whaling, ie. they are only blowing whales brains out with high explosives to collect “scientific” information to aid in the species’ recovery. Right. This reminds me of how, in the 1950s, fisheries biologists in Massachusetts would conduct population surveys of fish in Mass. streams by dumping 50 pounds of rotenone into the water and counting all the dead fish for a mile downstream.

There are real issues in some places. But everywhere one seems to get a knee-jerk opposition to the building of anything. If you want low-carbon energy, it’s got to be built somewhere, and outside of nuclear, they tend to require large area footprints. So do your cost-benefit analysis and see where the greater good is.

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Yes, we all know the ‘research’ whaling is a crock. But that doesn’t justify such aggressive methods.

I don’t know how much influence the guy in the weird costume has, anyway. I definitely ignore the crowd of slogan-chanting tea partiers. A fringe group can still put up a decent showing in the public square, but would still be fringe.

If you want low-carbon energy, it’s got to be built somewhere, and outside of nuclear, they tend to require large area footprints. So do your cost-benefit analysis and see where the greater good is.

I agree. One has to look at the entire package. Local avian morbidity and loss of amenity has to be weighed against the damage being caused by the technologies the wind turbines are displacing. Of course, if they are not, really displacing much harm then the calculus tells against them. Mostly, this will be so in the case of renewables. (Geothermal might be an exception in some cases).

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Yes, we all know the ‘research’ whaling is a crock. But that doesn’t justify such aggressive methods.

Here I disagree. I think it entirely warrants such methods. What else is there?

From the POV of the more insane elements of the filth merchant agnotologists, any publicity is good publicity. Publicity that suggests rational well-informed people are willing to deem them rational and possibly persuasive is a win. Being left to their own jerk circle is a loss.

It’s not as if they would be able to debate in any meaningful sense anyway since they either make no actual testable claims about the matter or start calling their interlocutors rude if they call them on it.

Just keep the argument within the circle of those that are already persuaded.

Exactly. Let them have their moronic roll call and let everyone see who waves the flag and their fools’ convention. That’s far better.

Yes and no. Firstly, Monbiot did allow himself to get off-message with CRU, which was a victory for Plimer.

Secondly, Monbiot is not a scientits but a journo, and is hardly known here outside of us trainspotters, so downside risk was low.

Lateline isn’t watched much except by people like us and so potential upside for them was practically zero. Some reactionaries thought Plimer playing all hurt and abused by Monbiot was a kind of victory.

It did give us more ammunition as his performance on Lateline was abysmal, but you really didn’t need Monbiot there for that.

At best a new event might reproduce Lateline but the format is unlikely to be allowed to permit this. Their honchos will shut it down if it goes places they don’t like.

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Yes, we all know the ‘research’ whaling is a crock. But that doesn’t justify such aggressive methods.

I’d offer that firing 100 mm explosive shells into the brain of a pregnant mother whale for the sole purpose of blowing her brains out is a categorically different type of political advocacy than steering a boat into the wake of the boat with the howitzer that is blowing the whales’ brains out.

>”I’d offer that firing 100 mm explosive shells into the >brain of a pregnant mother whale for the sole purpose of >blowing her brains out is a categorically different type >of political advocacy than steering a boat into the wake >of the boat with the howitzer that is blowing the whales’ >brains out.”

Be careful here. The activists don’t like to hear this, but the whaling moratorium was agreed only for getting the different populations back up to healthy levels. Humaneness was not part of the equation, and is a bait-and-switch. You can campaign on humaneness all you want, but do so using legitimate tactics, not violence.

Joe Six-pack has noticed that the climate where he lives has failed to conform to the Hockey Stick predictions made only 10 years ago. When reality is in sharp contrast with climate “science”, trust reality every time and then start looking at the science to find out where it went wrong.

One theory is that the radiative forcing due to GHGs (primarily CO2) is much weaker than what was assumed in eleven of the climate models cited by the IPCC. The factor of six quoted by Monckton came from Lindzen & Choi (LC09). Even if you don’t like that explanation, it does not change the obvious failure of the climate models.

Maybe True Sceptic despite all the complex talk of reducing emissions and geongineering, we should just hold a referendum and vote the climate anomaly out of reality.

I wonder if any thought has been given to that? I bet that would be popular with “Joe Six-pack” as a solution. The trick of course would be getting the laws of physics to respect Joe’s verdict.

Sadly, compared to those George Harrison-style joint consciousness for peace stunts, this doesn’t sound very feasible at all, sadly. Last time I looked, physics wasn’t paying any attention at all to Joe.

That line of reasoning can be used to justify all manner of violent actions, when you can’t get your way politically.

Not at all. The raiders in the SOWS are in express violation of a convention to which their own government is a signatory. There are no other legal means to restrain this conduct, as there would be in a properly policed jurisdiction. In the absence of a ‘cop on the beat’ such measures are defencible, in just the way that people who are in some failed state may take such measures as are reasonable to protect their legitimate interests against criminal imposition.

“Graham Readfearn agreed to the debate with Monckton and Plimer. Various denialists are trying to help him with debate prep with their comments on his blog.”

I must admit , I argue with them there every day, its a challenge. Bolts sheeple are there en masse quoting from greats like Anthony Watts, Monckton, Plimer, McIntyre asking for proof every 2nd sentence…sigh.

“The sheer number of dimwitted gish-galloping talking-point-recycling deniers in there is just depressing.”

Agreed, its like a game of whack a mole. But you can pretty much predict what will happen everyday. You will be asked about 1998, greenland, other planets warming, plants love Co2, the hockey stick, milankovitch cycles, its the sun, UHI, models are wrong etc etc. Then after you answer, the same person will ask the same thing the very next week, like it never happened. They are not there to provide an understanding of science. They are there to create uncertainty, spread doubt & delay action.

Gishgallopingcamel demonstrates exactly why a complex scientific issue must never be debated with a denier. The denier spews out the full slate of denier talking points at a gallop; then the scientist has to walk the Joe Six-packs in the audience through the refutation of each long-discredited point. The deniers know they’ll always have the advantage in the format, because Joe will award the prize to the faster talker.

Our discussions rest on the IPCC’s prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening, so with every year that passes it looks more and more ridiculous. If the Hockey Team were real scientists they would spend their time finding out what is wrong with their theories rather than constructing a cover up that breaks our FOI laws.

I say that global warming is a good thing because of what historians tell us. To take a simple example, I drink beer and scotch whisky, products appropriate to today’s climate in the upper latitudes. Historians say that my ancestors in Littleham-by-Bideford in Devon during the Medieval Warm Period were more inclined to drink wine because of its abundance and high quality.

If the IPCC is right my children will live to see inexpensive good quality wine grown in England once again. Sadly, this appears to be improbable fiction.

Don’t get me wrong. I am ready to work with you folks to reduce CO2 emissions. Just because my reasons for doing that are different from yours should not prevent us from working together.

Whilst we’re on the topic of Monckton, for a little light relief readers here might like to have a peak at [The Beast’s list of the 14 Most Heinous Climate Villains](http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237).

Monckhausen rates at #14. What I found chuckle-worthy though was the description of his ‘comeuppance'; and that for Lomborg, who comes in at 13.

I snorted my teat through my nose (first time in a while) when I read Bjorn’s comeuppance…

Perhaps the way to deal with the Gishgallopping is to point out it’s incoherence. Pick two points that contradict each other and ask the gallopper to decide which of the two he really believes, and so on.

Our discussions rest on the IPCC’s prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

A much simpler thing to do would be to use the term the same way everyone else does, so we can all understand each other. The rest of us, when we use the term “Hockey Stick” in a climatological context are talking about temperatures that have already happened. Which makes your next sentence delightully ironic:

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening, so with every year that passes it looks more and more ridiculous.

A warmer climate brings prosperity because it extends growing seasons in the high latitudes where many of us live. It seems I am outvoted on this. While I respect your opinions, a toastier climate sounds good to me.

zoot @70, I admire your brevity. You may be right. Let’s revisit this in 2020.

Moving on, do any of you want to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere? If so, I may be able to help.

This Hockey Stick shows temperature range predictions all the way to 2100.

Another problem with the Hockey Stick is its failure to explain past climate. For more credible temperature reconstructions covering the last 1,000 years I recommend the IPCC’s AR1 report or recent work by Loehle & McCullough. L&McC give zero weight to tree ring proxies whereas the Hockey Team gives great weight to them.

Our discussions rest on the IPCC’s prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

You’ve been [called on it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-2217938) once already, but I would like you to clarify further – why do you feel the need to redefine what the ‘hockey stick’ is, and what gives you the credibility to do so? Why should your reference to future temperatures be used when it confuses the historic context in which the term has been used to describe temperature trends to date? Do you not understand that the IPCC predictions for temperature to 2100 are simply that, and not a part of the hockey stick temperature reconstruction?

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening

Ignoring your wrong-headed redefinition of the term, and following on from pough’s indication of the irony in your statement, exactly how do you understand temperatures to be tracking over the past few decades, and what do you believe that this indicates with respect to temperature changes over the next century?

How do you reconcile your answer with your statement that:

Our discussions rest on the IPCC’s prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Moving on…

A warmer climate brings prosperity because it extends growing seasons in the high latitudes where many of us live.

Ah, that non-hoary, but nevertheless very old, chestnut.

So, a few details then. Is it only the length of the growing seasons that will change at “high latitudes”? Where exactly will the crops, whose seasons are extended, be growing? Which crops would they be? Do you anticipate any adverse consequences? What would any such consequences imply for “inexpensive good quality wine grown in England”?

I recommend the IPCC’s AR1 report or recent work by Loehle & McCullough.

As an ordinary punter (and nice girl) I wonder, is there any hope for the survival of the species when we are fed such absurdities?:

1. Sceptics continually sneer at the computer modelling and statistical methods used in scientists’ submissions to the IPCC. Sceptics then present the findings of top dog mouthpieces for the sceptics – Christy, Spencer, Carter, Plimer, Monckton et al. Can someone explain how the computer modelling and statistical methods used by sceptics are superior to those used by the IPCC scientists?

2. Plimer claims there has been no warming since 1998. Monckton claims there has been no warming for fifteen years. Right – 2010 take away 15 = 1995. However, Robert Carter, “science advisor” to the SPPI (of which Monckton is chief policy adviser) claims there has been no warming since 1998. Huh?

3. Plimer claimed that man-made chlorofluorocarbons come from volcanoes. Well I know that hydrogen chloride comes from volcanoes and that they produce a chemical reaction to form chlorine but they’re not CFCs and even ordinary punters like me know what “man-made” means. Huh?

4. Over at OLO, the very “right”eous moderator, has a propensity to suspend those who “slander” top dog sceptics. No character attacks permitted – well not on sceptics!

This is indeed baffling to the ordinary punter since the “right”eous moderator, appears bewitched by his own hubris:

a) “Williams appears to have picked-up the campaigning bug early in life. His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street. …… Fascinated by prestige and fame, he also recalls with relish that Bertrand Russell used to phone friends of his.”

b) “Williams isn’t the only global warming bully, and unfortunately universities are used to give (sic) some of the others added credibility as well. John Quiggin, an economist who specialises in modelling at the U of Queensland, and Tim Lambert, a computer scientist specialising in virtual realities, at the University of New South Wales, are web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy.”

There must be plenty of filthy lucre for these capitalist hirelings to infest the blogosphere with such quackery and alas, my Devonshire tea ladies are succumbing to this swill. En guarde gentlemen for history tells us what happens when good men say nothing!

John Quiggin, an economist who specialises in modelling at the U of Queensland, and Tim Lambert, a computer scientist specialising in virtual realities, at the University of New South Wales, are web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy

I guess that makes me a brown-shirt by association.

Ooo-errr.

Still, even if I am, it’s better than being a brown-tongue for the fossil fuel industry.

Well thank you indeed gentlemen. I can now provide the ladies at our Devonshire tea with a fair and balanced account on climate change. You, the brown shirts, I, the brownette and and Mr Monckton, the silver tongued “Lord”. Good stuff!

re brown-shirt: Cool, the Nazi association again. Having called Poe’s Law on the batty Laird and his ilk, we can also call Godwin’s Law on him. Unfortunately, Murphy’s Law will probably also apply: If you don’t think it could go any worse, it will.

gallopingcamel: Is that the Reverend’s party line? Do the utmost to deny GW is happening – and then offering to reduce CO2 emissions? You do know that to reduce private hoseholds AS WELL AS industry need to do something? By obfuscating and spreading doubt, deniers are creating an atmosphere of confusion, hindering proper legislation to be implemented.

Therein lies the rub. The problem is not whether a toastier climate is nice for you, but whether, given the current rate of climate change against a background of other human-induced changes a toastier climate is good for ecosystems across the biosphere and the species that make them up. You see, GC, humans are subject to the same laws of nature that dictates the structure and functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere. Natural systems permit our existence through a myriad of complex processes and through the generation of services that have few, if any technological substitutes. The real concern amongst ecologists such as myself is not only to better understand how resilient these systems are under the human assault, but how much our species can continue to simplify them before the vital services they generate break down. We already have examples of a range of services – pollination, pest control, water purification, flood mitigation – where the significant destruction of local ecosystems or keystone species greatly reduced these services with huge economic costs. These problems were regional and not systemic. Had they been the latter, we would be in deeper trouble as a species than we are now.

Climate change is just another nail in the coffin. It is synergized with the effects of other anthropogenic stresses on natural systems that are driving the largest extinction episode in 65 million years. Given that individuals, species and populations represent the working parts of our global ecological life-support systems, our continual tinkering on these systems whose functioniung we barely understand but which sustain us constitutes a single, non-repeatable experiment. This is not very prudent, don’t you think?

Therefore, the current rate of climate change represents a profoundly serious threat to much of the planet’s biota as well as to ourselves. It is important that the scientific community get this into the mindset of people – that it is not simply a choice of a warmer climate and more days in the warm sun, but of the short to medium term consequences of this change on the dynamics and functioning of natural systems that permit us to exist and to persist. Given what we know about past extintion events, the prognosis is not good.

gallopingcamel #87 – I’ve already started – my flat has much more insulation in the attice, cavity wall insulation, double glazing, and the thermostat is at 18C. I use a lot of second hand furniture and have had many of my clothes for years. Being made redundant fortunately massively reuced my daily commute which could only be done by car, for structural reasons. And the car was purchased for its greater fuel economy than my previous one (10mpg better).

That makes it 7-0 for “NO”. I am not quite ready to give up. Let me explain:

My goal is to slash CO2 emissions by methods that require far reaching legislation. Right now there is no chance to make progress due to the war of words surrounding climate science. While it is very entertaining for the participants, as long as the war continues the CO2 will keep building up.

IMHO the only way to pass game changing legislation in short order is to create a bi-partisan initiative. While it is hard to imagine Republicans and Democrats working together, why can’t we have Alarmists and Deniers working together?

I sincerely believe that there is a way to bring this about which is why I have been blogging on “hostile” sites such as Deltoid, Climate Progress, Huffington Post and Guardian/Monbiot.

If your “NO” vote is still unanimous, I will wish you well and turn my attention elsewhere.

When you write this kind of gibberish, “why can’t we have Alarmists and Deniers working together” then it is certainly hard for serious readers like me to give any credence to your wafer-thin views.

First of all, I abhor your intellectually vacuous use of the term “alaramist” to describe those like me who believe – with plenty of evidence – that humans are forcing climate. The very use of this word to describe the vast majority of the scientific community (me included) makes me think that you have been spending too much time scanning anti-environmental web sites.

A cursory overview of your posts reveals a pretty thin understanding of basic science, which I would expect to be a pre-requisite for you to make concrete suggestions on how to reduce atmsopheric levels of Co2. Next thing you will write is that you will give me suggestions on ways in which to better link variation in the lox gene in wild cabbages and their adaptation to a suite of biotic and abiotic selection pressures in their natural coastal habitats. I do not wish to appear snobbish but are you not the same bloke who suggested that you would like a ‘toastier’ climate? Given that this remark was about as deep as a puddle, why should I expect you to have anything remotely useful to suggest with respect to carbon mitigation?

You earlier wrote, “The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening”. Says who – you? Or a few psuedo-scientists on web sites you scan? How many peer-reviewed articles have you actually read, GC? Better still: how many of them do you actually understand?

Moreover, you also appear to suggest that there is actual difference in many of the policies of the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States. At least with respect to foreign policy, there isn’t a nanometers difference between them. Basically in the US there is one “Property Party” with two right wings. I thank Gore Vidal for that pearl of wisdom.

Give me any reason why anyone on this site should not put your posts into [Killfile]. So far you have not done that. All you have done is wade in here and write comic-book level comments. If this is all that you can do, may I suggest you go away?